he other day a neighbor came by. He was troubled, he said, by the outbreak of anti-Semitism around the world. "I thought it pretty much ended after World War II. I guess I was being naive."Posted on 04/17/2002 3:40:09 PM PDT by mrustow
Anti-Semitism Lives
In a State of Denial
he other day a neighbor came by. He was troubled, he said, by the outbreak of anti-Semitism around the world. "I thought it pretty much ended after World War II. I guess I was being naive."
My neighbor is a good man, a sincere man, and I recognized his kind words as an invitation for me to talk about my own encounters with Jew-haters.
But I couldn't. The truth is, I'm 54 years old, I've been a Jew all my life and I have never met an anti-Semite.
On the contrary. My experience is that the world is full of non-anti-Semites.
For example: A lot of German politicians are very upset by the Israeli-Palestinian war. Fair enough. Norbert Bluem, the former labor minister of Germany, has even accused Israel of waging "a war of extermination."
Germany has a small Jewish community (most German Jews killed themselves during World War II), but that didn't stop the Jews there from launching vicious charges of anti-Semitism against various German statesmen like Free Democratic Party leader Guido Westerwelle.
"This is an outrage," Westerwelle replied. "One must be allowed to criticize Israel's military policy without being pushed into an anti-Semitic corner."
Westerwelle is right. These days, in Europe, the slightest criticism of Israel or Jews gets blown up into a charge of anti-Semitism.
For example: Last week, in Kiev, a mob of Ukrainians chanting "Beat the kikes!" chased two Jews into a synagogue, tossing one of them through a plate-glass window. As usual, the Jews portrayed themselves as victims. Ukrainian police put that slander to rest by declaring that the incident "had nothing to do" with anti-Semitism.
Or take the case of Tom Paulin, an Oxford professor and frequent contributor to the BBC. His only crime was telling an Egyptian newsweekly that American Jews in Israel "should be shot dead. I think they are Nazis and racists. I feel nothing but hatred for them."
Paulin was immediately attacked for this observation. Fortunately, he was able to clear his reputation by declaring himself "a life-long opponent of anti-Semitism."
Former French Prime Minister Michael Rocard has "fought anti-Semitism" since he was "very young." That's what he told Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon in an open letter. He brought this up after asking rhetorically in the letter if Israel is planning to kill "half a million" Palestinians.
Rocard then warned that Israel's war on terrorism would lead to what he evidently considers a justified "torrent of worldwide anti-Israeli-ism."
This, presumably, is much different from a torrent of worldwide anti-Semitism.
There are non-anti-Semites on this side of the Atlantic, too. Minister Louis Farrakhan is one. Just this week, Farrakhan declared that he has nothing against Jews. "What I'm 'anti' is the type of control that some interests of that community exercise over our community."
Farrakhan, Paulin and Rocard may not like every single Jew or support every last Israeli policy. Neither do Pat Buchanan, Edward Said, David Duke, Ramsey Clark, Gore Vidal, John Trafficant and the Saudi royal family, but does that make them anti-Semites? On the contrary, these men have taken the extraordinary step of publicly declaring that they don't hate Jews.
That's why I told my neighbor to relax. If people like these aren't anti-Semites, there's really no such thing anymore.
E-mail: zchafets@aol.com
Original Publication Date: 4/17/02
Christianity is anti-Semitic. So is Islam. So are most of the countries of Europe. Many of the great writers of the West have been accused of anti-Semitism, including Chaucer, Shakespeare, Voltaire, Dickens, Dostoyevsky, G.K. Chesterton, T.S. Eliot, Orwell, and Solzhenitsyn.
I haven't read much of most of those writers, but I know that Eliot was a flaming anti-Semite, both in his prose and his poetry. Shakespeare was no philo-Semite either, and from what I've heard, any number of the other writers openly despised the Jews. But Sobran only says they have been "accused" of anti-Semitism, as if they were victims of thin-skinned Jews.
And no wonder. Halkin doesn't define anti-Semitism, but he finds it in every nook and corner. He counts genocide and persecution against Jews as anti-Semitic, which is surely reasonable, but he also counts a French diplomat's private wisecrack about Israel. Even a justified criticism of Israel, Halkin argues, can be anti-Semitic! "Anti-Semitism" seems to be a pretty broad concept, even broader than the concept of sin.
Nonsense. For Sobran, anti-Catholicism/anti-Christianism is a pretty broad concept, but I don't seek to devise ways to trivialize his criticisms of anti-Catholic bigotry. I look instead at the specifics of his charges.
"Anti-Semitism" is a Soviet-style word, an all- purpose accusation, and naturally the Soviet Union declared anti-Semitism a capital crime. Since it defies definition, it can't be falsified or refuted. In this court, as in a Stalinist show trial, there are no acquittals. Once you're accused, you're as good as convicted.
That's why people in public life dread the charge of anti-Semitism. It not only reflects Jewish, particularly Zionist, power; it reflects the amazing self-absorption now prevalent among many Jews. Everything is judged by the standard of organized Jewish interests, and whatever impedes those interests -- even a passing remark -- becomes "anti-Semitism."
So the chief purpose of the word is not to deter great crimes against Jews -- it isn't likely to stop an Osama bin Laden -- but to prevent even the most minor verbal offenses against Jewish amour-propre. It conflates mere criticism with persecution. Many blacks, feminists, and homosexuals try to use "racism," "sexism," and "homophobia" to the same effect, but these words don't have nearly as much power to frighten.
Aw, cmon! A black calling a white a "racist," has so much more power, than a Jew calling anyone an "anti-Semite."
Look, Sobran is no Pat Buchanan, but he also makes no effort to hide his hostility towards most Jews. (He makes exceptions for some orthodox Jews, presumably the Satmar Chassidim, who hate all non-Satmar Jews.) He peppers valid criticisms of Jews (e.g., for using the Holocaust for material gain) with mildly anti-Semitic remarks.
I thank the FReeper who posted links to Holocaust- denier sites where Sobran's articles are published, but I recognized at least one of those columns as one which he'd written for his own web site/syndicated column, and suspect the others were, too. (The Holocaust-denier site helps muddy matters further, by cutting off the dates of Sobran's columns.) This happens constantly on the 'net: people run articles they like without seeking permission. I know of a certain California site that does the same thing. Sobran may not know of this, or he take the position, that all publicity is good.
Easier said than ... said.
Broadcasting live RIGHT NOW! "Trueblackman" will be broadcasting his inaugural show on RadioFR! Tonight it's a FREEPFORALL! TBM will be discussing several current issues! Call in with your questions and topics!
I realize that you have generally been friendly to Israel. That is why your post shocked me so much and elicited a vehement reply. In the context of the threat and of the debates on FR recently, your post sounded the way I took it. I won't apologize, but I will say that I accept your explanation and do not now think that you made an ugly remark about Jewish influence.
Actually, I find either possible answer offensive, insofar as the question if posed in terms of who "forces" us to pay taxes. If you live here, you are consenting to a
form of government in which elected representatives of the people levy taxes. If you spoke about cases where the legislature has abandoned its legislative role and
simply handed over virtually arbitrary power to bureaucrats, I would agree with you. But not taxes. We pay the taxes that our elected representatives levy.
Since I didn't make a comment that justified this response, "But don't make the contemptible suggestion that Jews "forced" taxpayers to build these museums.", and you know it, you owe me an appology. If you elect not to make one, I guess I and others are free to come to our own conclusions. Up until now you have shown that you aren't man enough to make sure a comment is warranted before you start slinging slanderous condemnations around. Now it appears you're not man enough to own up to it and appologize.
Yes, I suppose an answer that would warrent your baseless response would be offfensive if it had been made. And no stating that I don't want our federal government funding Holocaust Museums isn't offensive. We have the Armenian Holocaust, Stalin's Purges, Mao's Slaughter, Pol Pot's Killing Fields and the commonly refered to Holocaust of WWII era Jews. Now we have large population centers in, Boston, Atlantic City, New York, Charelston, Miami, Atlanta, Cincinatti, Saint Louis... Get the picture? I haven't named all the Holocausts or all the cities. We're talking millions if not tens of millions or even more for each one of these. Where do you draw the line? Is it offensive for me to voice my opinion that I don't think we should fund these centers into the billions of dollars?
Now as for the taxes that are stolen from us. Our system of government is not supposed to redistribute wealth. Our government was set up to handle the national defense and some trade matters. The end. It was designed to be funded by small tariffs on trade. That's the way it worked until around 1910. What is going on in this nation resembles the socialist nations of Europe. And you think that I'm out of line for calling the federal government on this? I want this nation to return to the simple basics that our founders devised. Beyond that, it is my constitutional right to address this issue. The desimination of information and discussion of these types of issues is the major goal of this forum, designed to enlighten our forum participants so they can help to move our government back inside Constitutional ideals.
I realize that you have generally been friendly to Israel.
That's a hoot. Name one instance where I haven't been a friend of Israel. What's "generally" got to do with it? You're digging yourself deeper.
That is why your post shocked me so much and elicited a vehement reply.
Your response had nothing to do with my post. After rereading mine a number of times I've come to the conclusion that you couldn't possibly conclude that I was slandering people of Jewish decent. Try rereading your initial post to me if you want a shock.
In the context of the threat and of the debates on FR recently, your post sounded the way I took it.
My post did not reflect anything more than I intended it to. Your own empty headed logic and totally baseless response is completely unsupportable. And you know it. Don't try to pass your lack of perception and insulting manner off on other events you may have experienced. I'm not responsible for them. You are responsible for the comments you make to others.
I won't apologize, but I will say that I accept your explanation and do not now think that you made an ugly remark about Jewish influence.
You made a comment that inferred an action on my part that was completely baseless, infered racist tendencies on my part, imparted a lack of support for Israel on my part, then dismiss it out of hand because you have every right to make such comments to anyone at any time. Is that about it?
106 posted on 4/18/02 6:16 PM Pacific by Southern Federalist
My opinion is more extreme than Sobran's: I would say that "antisemitism" should never be applied as an instrument to conclude a debate, even when it is applicable. It is a characterization: "'The Merchant of Venice' is antisemitic and has beautifully written monologues, every student of drama or of the Jewish Diaspora should read it". When crimes are committed against Jews, the crimes matter, not the sentiment behind the crimes.
At the same time, I know what antisemitism is very well. It can be combatted with openness. Refusal to discuss things on their merits, -- such as the media's marginalization of Buchanan's views as antisemitic -- only fuels antisemitism.
Yesterday I spent all day and night on a voyage into the heart of darkness, reading Holocaust deniers. That's all your fault, rmlew! Sobran is a very sophisticated denier. He doesn't (to my knowledge) up and say, "The 'Holocaust' was a hoax." He also doesn't say it happened. Instead, he praises the "courage" and "civility" of the deniers, while heaping contumely on the "thuggery" and "cowardice" of the Jews who harp on the Holocaust.
Buchanan is also a sophisticated Holocaust denier. His supporters always harp on the attacks on him, due to his phrase, "Israel's amen corner" in Congress. Personally, I love that phrase. I say, Amen, brother Buchanan!
But around the same time (1990), Buchanan wrote a column in which he claimed that 1. hundreds of thousands of Jews who were recorded as having been murdered with diesel fumes, could not have been killed in that fashion, and that 2. at least half of all death camp survivors' testimony was wholly false, either due to witnesses' faulty memories, or outright fraud.
What such a claim does, is start a thoughtful person to wondering, if not all of the Holocaust story is a fabrication.
[...]
start a thoughtful person to wondering, if not all of the Holocaust story is a fabrication.
My concern is with that thoughtful person also. Here is the predicament: A Thoughtful Person learns that a factual argument exists that points to inaccuracies in the prevailing Holocaust story, such as you mention. Being thoughful, he expects a counterargument along the lines that the inaccuracies do not exist or are not substantial enough to challenge the prevailing story of the Holocaust, or not fundamental enough to deny the basic reality of the Holocaust. Instead, our Thoughtful Person gets something like "Only an antisemite would suggest something like this", and no factual rebuttal. Worse, our Thoughtful Person notices how the history of the Holocaust is leveraged in the present-day political environment, which seems to have nothing in common with Nazi Germany. And our Thoughful Person begins to think thoughts about Jewish Conspiracy denying him some historical knowledge to present-day political ends. Worse still, he sees how a perfectly respectable political message of strong cultural identity, trade protectionism and nationalist foreign policy gets sidetracked by the political establishement on the side issue of possible antisemitic disposition of the messenger, again, with little substantive debate.
I was thinking of the typical followers of a Buchanan, rather than of his potential followers, much less of people who might never become his followers, but who might still come to the conclusion that the Holocaust was either an outright hoax, or at least a wild exaggeration.
Thanks for straightening me out.
Sobran trivializes anti-Semetism because he is an anti-Semite.
That the charge of antisemitism is applied so broadly as to preclude any but wholly positive view on things Jewish; for example, the way it is applied would place outside of the pale of acceptability great works of art;
1. Some people do overuse anti-Semetism as a tool and it is oversuesed.
2. There are times when it is entirely appropriate. Sobrans column where he implies that Jews are conspiring to destroy the Catholic Church and that Jews=communists comes to mind.
That criticism of Israel, however severe, should not be dismissed as antisemitic if objective standards underlie it;
I disagree. If the reasons for teh anti-Zionism or event criticims are based on anti-Semetism, then you cannot ignore teh anti-semetism. When David Duke or IHR publish anti-Israeli rants, one cannot ignore the reasons for the attack, even if there is some merit in it.
That national self-centeredness should be allowed every nation, even those with distinct interests from the interests of the Jewish nation;
No disagreement, except in the case of Israel.
That antisemitism or things resembling antisemitism should not be construed as thought crimes in themselves, which stifles useful debate.
I'm not calling for the banning of Sobran or his re-education. I do ask that people recognize his prejudice when reading his pieces.
My opinion is more extreme than Sobran's: I would say that "antisemitism" should never be applied as an instrument to conclude a debate, even when it is applicable. It is a characterization: "'The Merchant of Venice' is antisemitic and has beautifully written monologues, every student of drama or of the Jewish Diaspora should read it". When crimes are committed against Jews, the crimes matter, not the sentiment behind the crimes.
1. Given that Sobran is an anti-Semite who writes for Holocaust deniers, I should hope you do not hold more extreme views.
2. The desire to help the oppressed is noble, but it is a liberal impulse and must be constrained by logic. That someone says he is oppressed doesn't make it so or does not mean that he should be taken seriously.
3. There is a difference between the crude bigotry of the Merchant of Venice and the mob which attacked a Synagogue in Kiev last week. However, you cannot ignore the reasons for a crime. A crime aimed at a section of society is different than one aimed at an individual. Buring a cross on a lawn and torching a picket fence are both vandalism and destruction of property. However, they also have very different meanings.
At the same time, I know what antisemitism is very well. It can be combatted with openness. Refusal to discuss things on their merits, -- such as the media's marginalization of Buchanan's views as antisemitic -- only fuels antisemitism.
I agree. However, anti-Semite commonly claim victim status to hide their actual hate.
The reason for the crime matters inasmuch as it augments the threat. Destroying a picket fence is vandalism but the victim of that crime is not in fear for his life, and he is not in fear that someone in the neighborhood hates him deeply, viscerally, and irrationally. Burning a cross is a different crime because it signals all those things in addition to the relatively minor property damage. I suppose that a particularly vicious antisemitic (or racist, or what have you) screed could brise to the level of a crime similar to cross-burning. I don't think that any criticism of Israeli policies or historicity of the Holocaust can rise to that level, and you yourself admit it as you say that you don't want to ban or reeducate Sobran. So, Israeli politics, the Holocaust, or how these things refract on the American political scene should be debated on the merits of the argument and without regard to people's motivation. All the more so since the charge of antisemitism is not a merely intellectual charge as it closes many doors to a polemicist.
It comes down to a question of interpretation. I think now that my interpretation of your post was in fact wrong but not unreasonable. If that still leaves you enraged, I regret the fact but can do nothing about it.
I did not ever slam you for opposing the construction of Holocaust museums with government funds. I think it is both false and irresponsible to say that Americans are being "forced" or coerced to pay for Holocaust museums. That and that alone is what I objected to. I do not think that we are being "forced" when elected representatives vote for an appropriations bill. You can say that it is a stupid appropriation or that money is being appropriated for an unconstitutional end. But if popular government means anything, then our taxes are not coerced from us. The people elect the people who impose them. The people can elect people who would vote differently. If they don't it is because they want what they're getting. That is the problem conservatives have - the people of the United States want the government to do things we think it shouldn't. They are not being "forced," they are getting what they want.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.